I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.

So in order to use the scientific method we must make no assumptions? Not true. If it were so, then the only things we could approach scientifically would be things we knew perfectly. ie. Nothing.

Science only requires that we are willing to change our assumptions if the are falsified by future data. I.e. Snakes in the Devonian

So how did it happen? Snakes have DNA that can be changed. Modern snake DNA is very similar among other snakes, it is less similar to modern lizards and even less similar to modern turtles and crocdilians. It is even less similar to modern mammals.

DNA differences makes a species distinct.DNA can change with each generation.Species have changed over time.DNA changes over time is a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the mechanism of species change over time. (Evolution of species)

Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?

I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.

So in order to use the scientific method we must make no assumptions? Not true. If it were so, then the only things we could approach scientifically would be things we knew perfectly. ie. Nothing.

Science only requires that we are willing to change our assumptions if the are falsified by future data. I.e. Snakes in the Devonian

Of course you can make assumptions. That's not my contention. My contention is that you need to be able to test those assumptions using the scientific method.

Regardless of how much the natural world "suggests" that snakes evolved from lizards, the absence of a proper scientific analysis (using the scientific method) renders whatever you deduce from the "suggestions" as nothing more than an assumption. Now, it may be a very very strong assumption but it is an assumption just the same….and whatever conclusion you draw cannot be deemed scientific.

So how did it happen? Snakes have DNA that can be changed. Modern snake DNA is very similar among other snakes, it is less similar to modern lizards and even less similar to modern turtles and crocdilians. It is even less similar to modern mammals.

DNA differences makes a species distinct.DNA can change with each generation.Species have changed over time.DNA changes over time is a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the mechanism of species change over time. (Evolution of species)

Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?

Yes.

I predict that the snake species of planet Earth 10 million years in the future will be different from the current species of snakes. New species will be present and many current species will be extinct.

If we record the genome of snake species at intervals over that time period we will be able to demonstrate key genetic changes that resulted in the differentiation of these future snakes from their current Earth ancestors.

I further predict that these changes will be less obvious at shorter time intervals, such as 10, 100 and 1000 years. But at 100,000 and 1,000,000 they will be more obvious.

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?

Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

It would help to know if you understand anything about the scientific claims.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?

Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

It would help to know if you understand anything about the scientific claims.

I think (I may be wrong) the problem is in the part I bolded above. Evolution denying theists, particularly those who draw the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, seem to misunderstand what the ToE is saying about how an entity evolves - and they're not interested enough to find out for themselves. If they actually cared, they'd use the technology they use to argue with us about it and try to find out what the ToE actualy says; there are thousands of good science sites, and we provide plenty of links to factual information about it. Instead you get bullcrap excuses about why they can't possibly take the time to explain their understanding of it, because they'd far rather waste time continuing to post nonsense and demand that we explain it to them - go figure.

If they gave a damn about understanding it, they'd go educate themselves. They don't, on either count.

If the theist in question is a YEC there's no point in discussing anything about evolution with them.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

So, BibleStudent, you think that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for evolution. However, every other field of science supports evolution, from geology to immunology. Are these other fields also without scientific, empirical evidence?

Why do you think all other sciences support evolution if it is completely wrong? Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy among working scientists to cover up the fact that evolution is false? Are people just making up stuff and somehow other scientists accept it and even give prizes for this fake science? What do you honestly think is happening?

You say you want to see an experiment that shows actual evolution from a lizard to a snake. Well, so does every biologist on the planet, but guess what? It may never be possible to do that particular experiment. Does that mean that all the other evidence for evolution has been invalidated?[1]

Evolution has passed every challenge that science can throw at it. If it had failed even one of the thousands of tests, experiments, whatever you want to call them,[2], then scientists would have long ago abandoned it and we would not even be having this conversation. Evolution would have been thrown into the dustbin of history along with phrenology, alchemy and astrology-- stuff that used to be considered scientific until falsified.

Why do you think that scientists have been unable to falsify evolution, if it is indeed false? When you cannot falsify something, in science you act as though it is true and go on from there. If when you act as though the thing is true and your applications work as if the thing is true, again, you continue to act as though it is true. And so on. After 150 years of acting as though evolution was true, and no signs of it being false, it does not even matter if nobody has yet designed the exact experiment demonstrating evolutionary mechanisms happening in real time. Evolution works, whether someone is ever able to do that experiment or not.

I hope that you realize that science is a piecemeal enterprise where there is never a complete answer to a question. But when you have a theory that gives enough of the pieces to make predictions that are accurate, and to develop new fields of science based on the theory, wouldn't that indicate that the theory was fact?

I am really interested in this discussion, because as a college professor, I increasingly encounter students with this anti-evolution perspective. The anti-evolution stuff seems pretty new, like only 20 years old. My colleagues in other fields are dealing with it as well.[3]

When I was studying earth science years ago, we students rarely challenged the professors on things that were considered settled by the mountains of evidence, like the age of the earth and the theory of evolution.

What is strange is that nowadays the evidence is so overwhelming compared to 100, 50 or even 25 years ago, that in order to maintain the anti-evolution stance, there has to be some real...I don't even know what to call it. Willful blindness? I am not going to be negative or snarky here, because I want to understand where our anti-evolution students are coming, so we can better reach them with real science.

Seems to me that you are like a kid who refuses to believe that nasty raw eggs, dry sugar, liquid milk and mushy butter could somehow add up to a delicious birthday cake. If you just look at the ingredients and then at the finished cake without accepting that chemical reactions, time and heat are involved then of course it looks impossible, like maybe it had to be magic.

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

No. I am not saying that and I am not sure why you suspect that I am?

Quote

Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?

If snakes evolved from lizards, then what is the evolutionary mechanism that performed the transition and can you demonstrate via the scientific method that the hypothesis is correct?

And, by the way, I am using snakes-from-lizards as an example. I am not challenging claims about this specific alleged transition….I am challenging the claim that such an alleged transition is a scientifically based claim.

You can’t dig a hole and allow a presupposition to conclude that whatever similarities might exist in the fossils are automatically the result of evolution. You need to be able to, first, demonstrate scientifically that evolution is the cause for the observations before you can claim that evolution is responsible. Otherwise, it is science….it is speculation and assumption.

Quote

Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

Sure….but, at this point, it would be more accurate to say that ‘snakes-from-lizards’ change was the alleged byproduct of random mutations. The hypothesis for this claim has not ever been adequately tested in a scientific manner.

It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using the observation as your evidence and that is not science.

Is observation not science? What about astronomy? What about black holes? What about planets and environments? What about the weather? What is most of science, if not observation?

You are refusing to accept just some part of science because of your delusions?

Why do you do this? Remember that the ape in the mirror is not as clever as he might think. He is just an ape after all.

Like I said, your standards are too strange to be met. No, we cannot take a lizard and make its legs go away, but we could probably figure out which genes make legs, modify them so they don't work, and presto, a legless lizard. That would be mean and you wouldn't like it anyway.

We can track the changes in fossils over millions of years, but that isn't good enough for you. We can detail the mechanisms of DNA changes, but that isn't good enough for you. We can show that evolution has had billions of years to create our current life forms, but that isn't enough for you. We can show you DNA comparisons between snakes and lizards and show how similar they are, but that isn't good enough for you. We can create evolutionary changes artificially in a lab environment, but that isn't good enough for you. We can find the similarities in the genetics of all living things, but that isn't good enough for you. We can show you what appear to be close relationships between differing species (snake and lizards) and show you species that don't look at all alike and show how their DNA is very different, and that isn't good enough for you.

And you can't show us anything but an alleged god, who made, as per evidence we do have, billions of life forms that couldn't survive living on his perfect planet. You haven't got any evidence whatsoever except one book, which you're reading things into, and that isn't good enough for us.

So, we're at a standstill.

Can we talk about the weather or something. It sucks here in Montana today. And most everywhere else too. Lets just complain about that. It doesn't have DNA.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

You say you want to see an experiment that shows actual evolution from a lizard to a snake. Well, so does every biologist on the planet, but guess what? It may never be possible to do that particular experiment. Does that mean that all the other evidence for evolution has been invalidated?

No. It just means that the ToE is misleading people by claiming that it is a theory and a fact when a substantial part of it is not based on scientific evidence. Macroevolution is an assumption and unscientific because the scientific method has not been used to verify whether an evolutionary mechanism is capable of producing a snakes-from-lizards type transition.

Quote

Seems to me that you are like a kid who refuses to believe that nasty raw eggs, dry sugar, liquid milk and mushy butter could somehow add up to a delicious birthday cake. If you just look at the ingredients and then at the finished cake without accepting that chemical reactions, time and heat are involved then of course it looks impossible, like maybe it had to be magic.

In this thread, I am not claiming that evolution is false. Instead, I am demonstrating that macroevolution from microevolution is an unscientific conclusion.

It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using the observation as your evidence and that is not science.

Is observation not science? What about astronomy? What about black holes? What about planets and environments? What about the weather? What is most of science, if not observation?

You are refusing to accept just some part of science because of your delusions?

Why do you do this? Remember that the ape in the mirror is not as clever as he might think. He is just an ape after all.

All you have to do is show me how a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition has been tested using the scientific method. The evolutionary pathway responsible for this transition needs to be tested in an observable, measurable, and falsifiable way. Absent that, any claims that snakes evolved from lizards is a mere assumption and unscientific.

-Corresponds to the observed evidence-Can be used to make predictions-Has made predictions that have been validated-Has no alternatives that better fit the observed evidence or make valid predictions not made by the ToE.

Like I said, lets stick to the weather. Scientists think they have plenty of scientific information that makes evolution valid. That it doesn't meet your standards puts an end to the entire endeavor, I guess. We'll all just stop, go back in time, start hitting our women with clubs and chalk it all up to some mysterious deity that otherwise never shows.

If it means no more reality TV, I'm all for it.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.